Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Manchu wrote:The main point is that your separation of economic from social issues does not reflect the complexity you are trying to demonstrate. Rather, it is an oversimplification.

And yet, combining the two like you suggest is also an oversimplification.

I provided two very good examples in the previous page.

biccat wrote:
There's a consistent "understanding of socialism that prevails in US politics"? If so, what is it...

Sure, in US politics socialism is most often simply another word, generally a pejorative, for the left in general. Of course, this is an anecdotal determination, but that's basically what follows from any argument from the prevalence of definition X.

biccat wrote:
So we're back to square one. Can anyone provide a definition of "left wing" that clearly distinguishes Democrats and President Obama? The assertion has been made a number of times that the "American Left" is really center/right, but no one really has offered a good definition that establishes that fact.

Nor has anyone offerred a good definition of what the right side of the spectrum constitutes, and why it does not include Obama or the American left. Conservatives? If so, what kind of conversvative? Fiscal? Social? If either, then is it conservatism in the strict sense of wanting to maintain the status quo, or in the broad sense of desiring a certain set of political outcomes arising from what has been termed progressivism in the past?

This sort of ambiguity is why I made my earlier comment about the meaninglessness of political spectra, particularly those that discuss the left and the right as opposed to the right as defined by this spectrum or the left as defined by this spectrum.

biccat wrote:
...and how is it relevant to distinguish the American Left from the more generic "Left"?

In a material sense it isn't, but then spectra aren't usually about material politics. They're about how people feel about political positions, and the rhetoric used to justify them. In general this means that any US politician is going to be viewed as right of center, because in US politics socialism is a dirty word.

To illustrate, who is further to the right, the guy that wants to abolish corporate taxes, or the guy that wants to impose a 1% corporate tax in order to fund an office of accounting standards?

Melissia wrote:I provided two very good examples in the previous page.

I would suggest re-reading MonsterRain's post.

To wit: Those who want abortion made illegal and what the laws against abortion enforced must consider that this will entail an expense to the government greater than the allowing legal abortions to be privately funded. Now, it is certainly possible that a person who wanted abortions to be legal would also, on balance, favor less spending by the government. But to say that every social issue is utter independent of any economic issue is a much greater oversimplification than saying that all social issues have inextricable economic implications.

I couldn't care less about any politics, but at a push I'd say I like or agree with communisn, and I mean proper communism, not what americans pretend communism is.

Stella Cadente wrote:I couldn't care less about any politics, but at a push I'd say I like or agree with communisn, and I mean proper communism, not what americans pretend communism is.

What would you say that Americans pretend communism is -- that's actually one of the current points of debate so you have perfect timing!

Stella Cadente wrote:I couldn't care less about any politics, but at a push I'd say I like or agree with communisn, and I mean proper communism, not what americans pretend communism is.

You do know for speaking your mind on the internet you'd probably be in a gulag under "proper communism" right? First you wouldn't be allowed access to the inernet, second for utilizing free speech you'd be a dead man.

Manchu wrote:

Stella Cadente wrote:I couldn't care less about any politics, but at a push I'd say I like or agree with communisn, and I mean proper communism, not what americans pretend communism is.

What would you say that Americans pretend communism is -- that's actually one of the current points of debate so you have perfect timing!

I don't debate politics, it's about as much a waste of time as 2 40k players debating which space marine chapter has larger cod pieces, a complete waste of time with neither side listening to what the other says.

I posted what I like or agree with, and that's that, I'm happy enough to keep my reasons to myself and avoid the brick wall headedness of political debates.

It depends on what S.C. meant by "proper." Communism doesn't necessarily entail authoritarianism, but that could just be an American pretending.

I think he means a true communist Scotsman.

Manchu wrote:It depends on what S.C. meant by "proper." Communism doesn't necessarily entail authoritarianism, but that could just be an American pretending.

Huh? How does it not necessarily entail authoritarianism? How else do you ensure that everyone contributes and doesn't leech off of the system?

Why not try democracy?

Manchu wrote:Why not try democracy?

Then it wouldn't be communism now would it Manchu.

They aren't exclusive, my dear fellow.

It depends on what S.C. meant by "proper." Communism doesn't necessarily entail authoritarianism, but that could just be an American pretending.

I think she meant the Utopian ideal that many communists have. It's a beautiful thing, utter fiction, but beautiful none the less.

Manchu wrote:They aren't exclusive, my dear fellow.

respectfully, and I say that because your angry ork avatar makes the weiners nervous, they are. To obtain the ideal communist endgame all power has to go to the centralized collective in order to properly reorganize and re-educate the propulation. Thats the antithesis of democracy.

You sound like Lenin!

The sad truth is that the facts are on your side while I only have lifeless concepts . . .

Manchu wrote:You sound like Lenin!

The sad truth is that the facts are on your side while I only have lifeless concepts . . .

And really sharp pointy teeth!

Isn't Utopian communism called Marxism generally? It has succeeded in small scale tests, but that is when you are using only volunteers for the test subjects. It would not work on a large scale.

micahaphone wrote:Isn't Utopian communism called Marxism generally? It has succeeded in small scale tests, but that is when you are using only volunteers for the test subjects. It would not work on a large scale.

Or when one of the volunteers has a burp gun.

Frazzled wrote:

micahaphone wrote:Isn't Utopian communism called Marxism generally? It has succeeded in small scale tests, but that is when you are using only volunteers for the test subjects. It would not work on a large scale.

Or when one of the volunteers has a burp gun.

As proven in Russia, lead is a key ingredient in making people agree with you!

I am a Socialist.

I wish that those who use the term actually knew what it meant. It seems that Republicans use the term "Socialist" in the same way they use the word "Terrorist".

Karon wrote:I am a Socialist.

I wish that those who use the term actually knew what it meant. It seems that Republicans use the term "Socialist" in the same way they use the word "Terrorist".

Everyone knows that "Socialist" doesn't mean the same thing as "Terrorist."

It's just that not everyone knows that the former is a subset of the latter.

Not a great joke, biccat. :(

And if it wasn't a joke then it's pretty much trolling without further explanation.

Manchu wrote:Not a great joke, biccat. :(

I refuse to apologize for having a bad sense of humor.

This image comes to mind:

Manchu wrote:This image comes to mind:

Oh wow, who took the "after" photo of me?

I didn't know you had had a chest hair transplant?

How's it working out?

Certainly not a player of the game, but I do so love the fluff. So I suppose I count. I'm a Fascist Reactionary with Bonapartist leanings.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:Okay, but you're not using a spectrum common to most people.

That's because most people want to oversimplify everything and put it on an inaccurate two-dimensional scale.

The two-dimensional "left-right" scale is a lie.

Left-right is a one dimensional scale. Economic left-right paired with social conservative-progressive is two dimensional, like the political compass test.

Manchu wrote:I am saying that there is no necessary disconnect between economic and social issues. I believe they are very often tied together, as in the charitable giving deduction example I provided to you.

Granted, there are certainly many people who believe the governments should deliver all sorts of programs or enforce all sorts of laws against all sorts of behaviors without ever giving any thought to how these sorts of things should be funded, but that's as may be.

The main point is that your separation of economic from social issues does not reflect the complexity you are trying to demonstrate. Rather, it is an oversimplification.

I'd hazard a guess that "economic" is meant to refer specifically to issues like taxation, regulations, social programs, and public infrastructure, while "social" refers to what are effectively moral judgments legislated by the government that have few, or less obvious, economic implications.

Frazzled wrote:

Stella Cadente wrote:I couldn't care less about any politics, but at a push I'd say I like or agree with communisn, and I mean proper communism, not what americans pretend communism is.

You do know for speaking your mind on the internet you'd probably be in a gulag under "proper communism" right? First you wouldn't be allowed access to the inernet, second for utilizing free speech you'd be a dead man.

I'm assuming "proper communism" means "(actual) marxism" (as in, what Marx actually proposed), which isn't so much a system as a "path to Anarchism", so to speak. The idea is for the working class to revolt and establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat" that would serve to coordinate the logistics of the transition to Anarchism, then stand down and return to work. Naturally, this doesn't actually work, but it's a far cry from Stalinism or any other "communist" regime we've seen. Now Anarchism, as a system, demonstrably works, with the caveat that it only works in very small groups, no more than a few hundred. We see it in both horticultural tribes and hippy communes, and in both it functions, but it doesn't scale up beyond those numbers, at which point the "crime protection" of "everyone knows and is familiar with everyone else" breaks down due to the limits of the human brain, and logistics become too burdensome for chaotic organization to work everything out.

Sir P is a smart person.